On 3/4/2005 5:29 PM, Darcy Buskermolen wrote:

> On Friday 04 March 2005 14:17, Christopher Browne wrote:
>> Jan Wieck <JanWieck at Yahoo.com> writes:
>> > On 3/4/2005 4:46 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> >> Chris, Christian,
>> >>
>> >>> > That table will presumably need a VACUUM FULL when you get a chance.
>> >>> > (That will slow replication while it's running, but shouldn't have
>> >>> > much impact on users; it doesn't block inserts into replicated
>> >>> > tables...)
>> >>>
>> >>> Will try, but I'm afraid that something is still blocking on the table.
>> >>>
>> >>> BTW, what process is it that requires an ExclusiveLock on pg_listener?
>> >>
>> >> OK, successive VACUUMs took care of it; I just had to VACUUM around
>> >> the timing of Slony locking pg_listener.
>> >> Obviously we need to vacuum the Slony schema a lot more frequently
>> >> ....
>> >
>> > normally slony does vacuum it's own tables quite frequently. I think
>> > in the 1.0 versions vacuuming of pg_listener was forgotten though.
>>
>> pg_listener was not present in 1.0.2; it was added in 1.0.[3-5].
> 
> pg_listener, that's a system catalog not at all related to the slony schema.

He meant "pg_listener vacuuming"


Jan

-- 
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck at Yahoo.com #